Client Alerts & Insights
EEO-1 Pay Data Collection Suspended Indefinitely
September 5, 2017
Employers can breathe a sigh of relief. On August 29, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Acting Chair announced that the Office of Budget Management (OBM), per its authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PDA), had immediately stayed the EEOC’s pay data collection components of its EEO-1 Report, also known as the “Employer Information Report,” that was to otherwise become effective on the next filing deadline of March 31, 2018.
Covered employers—those with at least 100 employees or federal government contractors with at least 50 employees—have long had to file the EEO-1 Report annually. The Report requires covered employers to divulge their employees’ race, ethnicity, and gender demographics by job category. Last September 29, 2016, in line with its current strategic plan’s focus on pay equity, the EEOC revised the Report to also require employee compensation and hours worked.
The business community had criticized the pay reporting requirements since their inception. Critics argued that the new requirements carry high compliance costs and burdens; cause privacy concerns, as the EEOC has not explained how the data can be used; and are ineffective in explaining perceived pay inequities, as employers have nowhere on the Form to explain legitimate reasons for apparent inequities. Also, as the OBM’s announcement pointed out, the EEOC deprived the public of its opportunity to weigh in on pay data’s required data collection methods because the Federal Register notice never included such methods.
The EEOC is expected to provide more information on what to expect going forward. Covered employers and federal contractors should assume, for the time being, that this stay does not relieve them of timely annual submission of the EEO-1 Report’s other data categories. This stay also does not alter the fact that the EEOC has expressed its strategic focus on pay inequities and will continue to pursue litigation, including the multiple Equal Pay Act lawsuits it has filed this year. Employers also should ensure that any pay differentiations amongst job categories are explainable with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | ebaisden@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4676
Johanna Fabrizio Parker | jparker@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4585
Peter Kirsanow | pkirsanow@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4481
Latest News
DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues Corporate Enforcement Directive, Signaling Heightened Scrutiny of Corporate Fraud
DOJ’s new enforcement framework reinforces that corporate fraud investigations will remain a significant enforcement priority, particularly in healthcare, government contracting, tax and international trade.
Lessons from Kai Spears v. The New York Times Co.: A Historic Defamation Verdict
The first defamation verdict against The New York Times in more than 50 years highlights the significant litigation risks that can arise when reporting relies on inadequately vetted anonymous sources and critical editorial safeguards are not followed.
Back To Wright Line: NLRB Resets Standards for Workplace Misconduct
Employers have regained greater flexibility to address offensive or abusive employee conduct that occurs during union activity or other activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a significant decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41, restoring the prior standard for evaluating discipline when employee misconduct occurs during protected concerted activity from General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127.
Can an Algorithm Commit a Tort? The Circuit Split Over Section 230
A growing circuit split is reshaping the scope of Section 230 immunity. While the Fourth and Ninth Circuits continue to view algorithmic recommendations as protected publisher conduct, the Third Circuit has taken a narrower approach, holding that certain algorithm-driven content recommendations may constitute a platform’s own conduct and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protections.